One thing Ambrosi does that I haven't seen elsewhere is make the cuffs so that you can unbotton them to clean them. Not something you use all that often but it is nice.

Interestingly, this is quite common practice in quite a few places in Tokyo, and has been for a decade or more (ie well before Signore Ambrosi became well known).

I've purchased several pairs of trousers at department stores in Japan (albeit quite nice department stores) over the past decade or more and when I've asked for them to be cuffed, the assistant typically asks whether I want them to be stitched closed at the seams, or whether I want them to add a button on the inside cuff and a buttonhole on the outside leg seam.

Interestingly, this is quite common practice in quite a few places in Tokyo, and has been for a decade or more (ie well before Signore Ambrosi became well known).

I've purchased several pairs of trousers at department stores in Japan (albeit quite nice department stores) over the past decade or more and when I've asked for them to be cuffed, the assistant typically asks whether I want them to be stitched closed at the seams, or whether I want them to add a button on the inside cuff and a buttonhole on the outside leg seam.

Always on that future steez.

That is interesting. When you say department stores do you mean ones selling their own house brand stuff or one that sells a bunch of high end brands and they order that spec?

If a hanger isn't available you can hang them on a hook, it's not a big deal just something extra. I use the same chain on the coats and jackets, chains used to be used because the old heavyweight cloths would be too heavy for anything else. It's a traditional holdover and a bit more lux than making it out of just lining. The chains also come in real gold and can be monogrammed.

The button cuff is fun but any tailor can do it on any well made RTW dress pant. It is funny how that single feature gets such major initial attention. I posted a pic of it on my blog a few times over the years and it always received some of the highest number of comments and reblogs. It's a complete #menswear nerd/geek detail.

That is interesting. When you say department stores do you mean ones selling their own house brand stuff or one that sells a bunch of high end brands and they order that spec?

Both, in my experience.

Some dept stores (such as Mitsukoshi) do have house brands that they have produced for them under a few different names, as well as selling name brands. Other stores (such as Isetan) concentrate more on name brand stuff.

A number of Japanese dept stores and clothing stores offer alterations that include having a buttonhole stitched into the outer seam of the trouser leg. To be clear, this isn't something that's already been done to the trousers when they order them from the maker (as that would then mean that they could only be hemmed to a particular length), this is something that's done by the alteration people that the store uses once you've purchased the trousers.

Admittedly, the buttonhole isn't hand-stitched, but I purchased a pair of trousers once and the store altered them in house, including doing the cuffing and the buttonhole and button, within half an hour so that I could wear them to dinner that evening.

The button cuff is fun but any tailor can do it on any well made RTW dress pant. It is funny how that single feature gets such major initial attention. I posted a pic of it on my blog a few times over the years and it always received some of the highest number of comments and reblogs. It's a complete #menswear nerd/geek detail.

It's also something that gets conflated with necessarily implying a higher level of quality. Other examples I've noticed are pick stitching (and hand work in general), split yokes, and functional cuffs. While these idiosyncrasies may be desirable from a stylistic stand point, they do not in and of themselves indicate whether or not a specific garment is well made or whether or not it fits appropriately.

This is not to besmirch the quality of Ambrosi's pants. Given what I've heard, I'm perfectly willing to believe that they're wonderful. However, It's possible for all of the details being touted - pick stitching, cuff buttons, etc - to be done poorly in and of themselves. It's also possible for them to be done well while creating a pant with horrible and unclean lines for any of a number of reasons. Because of this, I remain skeptical of the conflation that occurs. I also remain skeptical of the assertion that having such a great amount of hand work necessarily makes the pants better, given that a number of makers - CEGO for shirts, Jeffreyd's blog, etc - have made compelling cases for possible shortcomings that arise out of such a manufacturing process. Especially since IIRC both have highlighted a relative inability of the general #menswear enthusiast to determine whether or not such things actually are done by hand.

It's also something that gets conflated with necessarily implying a higher level of quality. Other examples I've noticed are pick stitching (and hand work in general), split yokes, and functional cuffs. While these idiosyncrasies may be desirable from a stylistic stand point, they do not in and of themselves indicate whether or not a specific garment is well made or whether or not it fits appropriately.

This is not to besmirch the quality of Ambrosi's pants. Given what I've heard, I'm perfectly willing to believe that they're wonderful. However, It's possible for all of the details being touted - pick stitching, cuff buttons, etc - to be done poorly in and of themselves. It's also possible for them to be done well while creating a pant with horrible and unclean lines for any of a number of reasons. Because of this, I remain skeptical of the conflation that occurs. I also remain skeptical of the assertion that having such a great amount of hand work necessarily makes the pants better, given that a number of makers - CEGO for shirts, Jeffreyd's blog, etc - have made compelling cases for possible shortcomings that arise out of such a manufacturing process. Especially since IIRC both have highlighted a relative inability of the general #menswear enthusiast to determine whether or not such things actually are done by hand.

In this particular case, the comparison is with regards to construction since you cant judge the fit of trousers without a person in them.

Fit is (clearly, I think) paramount. But with regard to construction, I'd say that - within reason - more handwork means higher quality. That is largely because I much prefer the look of hand finished seams.

I suppose you can debate the merits of mediocre handwork vs no handwork but that seems like a rather dull discussion. And, in this specific example, irrelevant since the stitching on Ambrosis is quite nice as it is on The Modern English Tailor's example.Edited by Cantabrigian - 1/24/14 at 1:17am

In this particular case, the comparison is with regards to construction since you cant judge the fit of trousers without a person in them.

Fit is (clearly, I think) tantamount. But with regard to construction, I'd say that - within reason - more handwork means higher quality. That is largely because I much prefer the look of hand finished seams.

I suppose you can debate the merits of mediocre handwork vs no handwork but that seems like a rather dull discussion. And, in this specific example, irrelevant since the stitching on Ambrosis is quite nice as it is on The Modern English Tailor's example.

To a certain extent, my statement was about the SF gestalt/arrogance and how it does not always match up with the statements of the craftsmen/women who make such thing. I'll agree that handwork can be an indicator and that in general a certain amount of handwork can differentiate between the mediocre and the good, but towards the top I get more dubious. To keep things on pants, IIRC the long seams on the trousers I have from Despos are sewn by machine, and I think I remember hearing something about it providing a stronger, straighter, more even stitch? At the same time I have pants by Attolini, which if I recall are lauded for their handwork. They're beautiful pants, but I am certainly of the opinion that Chris' are better constructed. I know that comparing RTW to bespoken is dubious, but this example highlights what I see as a flaw of the heuristics being touted.

To bring things back to Ambrosi/David, the part of relevance in my post goes back to the last statement about the layman's ability to identify whether or not something is done by hand. My understanding is that there are machines and manufacturing techniques for producing stitches that resemble hand work. Pick stitching is the easy example. Additionally though, I've got seams and other things I know are hand stitched, but would not have guessed as such unless I had been shown how to identify them.

Even so, I would not place a large amount of faith in my ability to discern one way or the other in a garment I was handed at random. Having spent some time looking at these things myself and also observing the misconceptions that even some of the most prolific of custom consumers may have, my skepticism regarding my own ability couples to leave me with a naive skepticism regarding the general ability to discern whether or not something was done by hand simply from photos when there may exist both hand and machine techniques that produce very similar results. This goes back to your statement that the Ambrosi pants have more hand work than David's. I don't know how much hand work David's pants may contain, but until the man says something to determine what the state of affairs is, I remain capable of imagining hand techniques and identifying things from the pictures that put into question the process used for any particular part of the garment.Warning: Spoiler!(Click to show)

Also, the logician in me - as part of the mathematician - always hates the term "within reason" because its ambiguity really sort of sets things up so that the person saying it has all the wiggle room they need to find a corner to defend. Until we agree upon what is reasonable it's rather meaningless and leaves itself open so that the whole thing defines the person making the assertion as correct. This is neither here nor there though, and certainly nothing about trousers. It's a personal pet peeve that I've tried to accept because not everyone views conversation from the same perspective that I do. Other phrases are things like "common sense" and "back of the napkin."
[\spoiler]